+1 for Opsview. I have a reasonable amount of experience with it of late, It ticks most of the boxes mentioned here. For those of you who aren't aware - it's basically Nagios on steroids. Full commercial support is available or there is a community edition with almost all of the features in the commercially supported version. It has a data warehouse built in, supports multiple distributed monitoring points, SNMP Traps can be handled via passive checks, a neat web interface, android client, built in reports and a REST API that works really well. The commercially supported version also integrates with RANCID, Jasper reports and has a service desk connector (integrates with RT and such). http://www.opsview.com/community/compare-opsview Oh they have a module for puppet too :) On 30 August 2011 22:28, Geraint Jones wrote:

OpsView.

That is all.

From: Jonathan Brewer Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:18:02 +1200 To: Subject: [nznog] Nagios vs. OpenNMS vs. SomethingElse

Hi Folks,

If you had it all to do over again, what would you use for network monitoring: Nagios, OpenNMS, or something else entirely?

I care about availaility, latency, loss, jitter, and trap handling for interface up/down, loss of power, etc. Sensible behavior in situations where parent routers/links are flapping is also important.

I would very much appreciate input from folks monitoring 1000+ network elements.

Cheers,

Jon

------------------------------------- +64 27 502 8230 http://about.me/jonbrewer ------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

I'm just about to jump in the same thing again, as my new employer is a microsoft shop I'm looking at building/procuring: An NMIS virtual Appliance A Nagios Virtual Appliance There will be a 'Data Warehouse' in MS SQL Server that push/pulls data to both the appliance's. The Dev's here will then build a pretty frontend to this database. The device list is in DiamondIP's IPAM software, which does network discovery and mapping. Jon, if your in Christchurch any time soon I can share my experiences with NMIS/Nagios/SolarWinds/etc Cheers, Bill On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:19:03 +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:

On 30/08/2011, at 10:18 PM, Jonathan Brewer wrote:

...

Hi Folks, If you had it all to do over again, what would you use for network monitoring: Nagios, OpenNMS, or something else entirely? I care about availaility, latency, loss, jitter, and trap handling for interface up/down, loss of power, etc. Sensible behavior in situations where parent routers/links are flapping is also important. I would very much appreciate input from folks monitoring 1000+ network elements.

I recently looked in to this, and everything free out there seems to suck unless you have people full time building+maintaining this stuff.

Nagios appears to be the only free tool with almost reasonable dependency behaviors, and flap detection. However it doesn't easily handle SNMP traps/informs, and it doesn't (last I looked) handle multiple dependency trees either based on different layers of a network stack, or different collectors - I'd like something like that. It also involves lots of manual configuration.

There are lots of good tools out there if you've got 10 or so routers, and probably lots of servers.

I'm going to stick with Nagios for now, with some stuff to handle SNMP alarms, and probably alarms from spunk.

-- Nathan Ward _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing

list

NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [1]

http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog [2] Links: ------ [1] mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [2] http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

I wouldnt recommend Solarwinds. It is a bloated piece of crap. On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Bill Walker wrote:

**

The only commercial solution that comes close to what we need as an enterprise is the product suite from SolarWinds, but its expensive when your talking 8-12,000 IP enabled devices.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:46:56 -0700, Scott Pettit wrote:

Intermapper works great for us, handles dependancies, has configurable timers for flapping, and all the usual + traps. Remote Access is nice, engineers can bring it up from anywhere on their screen with full maps displayed rather than just a list of probes. It's cheap. For logging Splunk works well. We've looked at free options but nothing seems to do the job without a ton of scripting and multiple packages. What we don't like is the cost of Intermapper Flows – ideally we'd like to have NetFlow monitoring on everything, but at $300 USD per router + maintenance, it's hard to justify. If anyone knows of decent NetFlow analysers that are less costly for 200+ routers, I'd like to hear about them. -Scott From: Jonathan Brewer Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:18:02 -0700 To: "nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz" Subject: [nznog] Nagios vs. OpenNMS vs. SomethingElse If you had it all to do over again, what would you use for network monitoring: Nagios, OpenNMS, or something else entirely?

I care about availaility, latency, loss, jitter, and trap handling for interface up/down, loss of power, etc. Sensible behavior in situations where parent routers/links are flapping is also important.

I would very much appreciate input from folks monitoring 1000+ network elements.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- Callum Barr me(a)callumb.com

+1 for intermapper by a country mile. ________________________________ From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Scott Pettit Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2011 8:47 a.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Nagios vs. OpenNMS vs. SomethingElse Intermapper works great for us, handles dependancies, has configurable timers for flapping, and all the usual + traps. Remote Access is nice, engineers can bring it up from anywhere on their screen with full maps displayed rather than just a list of probes. It's cheap. For logging Splunk works well. We've looked at free options but nothing seems to do the job without a ton of scripting and multiple packages. What we don't like is the cost of Intermapper Flows - ideally we'd like to have NetFlow monitoring on everything, but at $300 USD per router + maintenance, it's hard to justify. If anyone knows of decent NetFlow analysers that are less costly for 200+ routers, I'd like to hear about them. -Scott From: Jonathan Brewer Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:18:02 -0700 To: "nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz" Subject: [nznog] Nagios vs. OpenNMS vs. SomethingElse If you had it all to do over again, what would you use for network monitoring: Nagios, OpenNMS, or something else entirely? I care about availaility, latency, loss, jitter, and trap handling for interface up/down, loss of power, etc. Sensible behavior in situations where parent routers/links are flapping is also important. I would very much appreciate input from folks monitoring 1000+ network elements.

we are far from 1000+ nodes in the moment but i was there already. I currently run stats gathering separate from notification/alerting. for the stats gathering i use a combination of collectd and graphite. the notification bit is home grown and would currently not scale to your needs. a really good article about monitoring is this one from the MT guys: http://weblog.mediatemple.net/2011/04/07/getting-more-signal-from-your-noise... cheers lenz On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Cameron wrote:

I’m also in a similar position.

I’m currently using Nagios + a large amount of customisation but I have a few requirements coming up that Nagios won’t be able to do. OpenNMS is looking like the likely candidate but I also want to evaluate Zenoss and Zabbix. I hadn’t seen them mentioned here yet so I thought I’d throw the names out and see if anyone has tried either of them at all. Scaling is the issue I guess, Nagios just does it so well.

Cameron

________________________________

From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Jonathan Brewer Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2011 8:18 PM

To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] Nagios vs. OpenNMS vs. SomethingElse

Hi Folks,

If you had it all to do over again, what would you use for network monitoring: Nagios, OpenNMS, or something else entirely?

I care about availaility, latency, loss, jitter, and trap handling for interface up/down, loss of power, etc. Sensible behavior in situations where parent routers/links are flapping is also important.

I would very much appreciate input from folks monitoring 1000+ network elements.

Cheers,

Jon

------------------------------------- +64 27 502 8230 http://about.me/jonbrewer -------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- twitter: @norbu09 current project: iWantMyName.com

You can’t argue with the pricing model of this though? http://sourceforge.net/projects/zenoss/ From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Bill Walker Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2011 12:06 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Nagios vs. OpenNMS vs. SomethingElse The Zenoss' pricing model didn't suit us and to get our hosts into there was going to take too long On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:49:07 +1000, Cameron wrote: I’m also in a similar position. I’m currently using Nagios + a large amount of customisation but I have a few requirements coming up that Nagios won’t be able to do. OpenNMS is looking like the likely candidate but I also want to evaluate Zenoss and Zabbix. I hadn’t seen them mentioned here yet so I thought I’d throw the names out and see if anyone has tried either of them at all. Scaling is the issue I guess, Nagios just does it so well. Cameron _____ From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Jonathan Brewer Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2011 8:18 PM To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] Nagios vs. OpenNMS vs. SomethingElse Hi Folks, If you had it all to do over again, what would you use for network monitoring: Nagios, OpenNMS, or something else entirely? I care about availaility, latency, loss, jitter, and trap handling for interface up/down, loss of power, etc. Sensible behavior in situations where parent routers/links are flapping is also important. I would very much appreciate input from folks monitoring 1000+ network elements. Cheers, Jon ------------------------------------- +64 27 502 8230 http://about.me/jonbrewer http://about.me/jonbrewer -------------------------------------

I've used zenoss (small scale) and found it to work very well. Initial setup required a rather steep learning curve but after that it worked well. Hugely flexible and looked very scalable. Was a year or two since I last had any use for it and it seems to have gotten all "Cloudy" in that time. Well worth evaluating though. John On 08/31/2011 11:49 AM, Cameron wrote:

I’m also in a similar position.

I’m currently using Nagios + a large amount of customisation but I have a few requirements coming up that Nagios won’t be able to do. OpenNMS is looking like the likely candidate but I also want to evaluate Zenoss and Zabbix. I hadn’t seen them mentioned here yet so I thought I’d throw the names out and see if anyone has tried either of them at all. Scaling is the issue I guess, Nagios just does it so well.

Cameron